ONE of the most important tasks of the women's movement in the past two
decades--if not the most important-has been to bring violence against
women in all its forms out of the closet. Contrary to the opinion of a
man who called in to a radio talk show to tell me that the work of battered
women's shelters was "the promulgation of victimization," the
often overwhelming task of bringing this information to light is one of
empowerment. Understanding that knowledge is power, women have bravely
spoken up about their experiences of abuse and formed supportive organizations
that send a message to survivors of male violence: you are not alone.
One out of three women in the U.S. is raped; one out of four (according
to the FBI) or even one in every two (according to California's attorney
general) is battered by an intimate partner; at least one out of four
has been abused as a child; and at least one out of five is an incest
survivor.

Despite an increased awareness of that violence, only a few works have
addressed the issue of pastors' sexual abuse of parishioners. Most of
these frame the problem as a psychosocial one rather than placing it squarely
in the spectrum of power abuse. Important exceptions are Marie Fortune's
Is Nothing Sacred? When Sex Invades the Pastoral-Relationship (1989) and
Peter Rutter's Sex in the Forbidden Zone: When Men in Power-Therapists,
Doctors, Clergy, Teachers and others-betray Women's trust (1990).

My own observations are based on working more than ten years in the battered
women's movement, in the church since 1984 as an ordained pastor, and
since August 1989 as a consultant in a program for survivors of clergy
exploitation. In convening a support group for such survivors, I have
witnessed the lasting devastations that these women have experienced.
The many parallels between male pastoral sexual abuse and wife or partner
battering have become increasingly clear, especially as the church is
so often portrayed as family. (I agree with Fortune that we should be
de-emphasizing the image of church as family in favor of images of community,
in which boundary expectations are more clearly defined.)

Pastoral abuse--pastors engaging in sexual or romantic relationships
with their parishioners or counsels--is much more prevalent than is commonly
supposed. Estimates exceed the 10 percent figure Rutter ascribes to male
psychotherapists. The abuse often is seen by parisioners and denominational
executives as something else--a problem with alcohol, for example, or
an emotional or relationship problem of the pastor or the parishioner,
or a parish conflict. A single pastor relating inti- mately with a single
parishioner is typically seen as an acceptable and time-honored practice.
I argue, however, that such intimate relating is always an unethical boundary
violation and that it is always the pastor's responsibly to maintain the
appropriate boundaries. As with rape, a pastor's sexual or romantic involvement
with a parishioner is not primarily a matter of sex or sexuality but of
power and control. For this reason I call it pastoral sexual abuse rather
than "pastor-parishioner relations" or, worse, a matter of private
activity between consenting adults (which is almost always how the perpetrator
will describe it). Even when adultery is involved, unfaithfullness is
not the primary issue. I have found that ministers enter into romantic
or sexual relationships with parishioners primarily because there is an
imbalance of power between them at the outset and because they need to
reinforce and heighten the intensity of that power dynamic. This is need
is driven by internal forces and Is reinforced by societaly conditioned
expectations that women will function as a nurturing, sexual servant class.

WHY SHOULD these relationships be considered abuse? If both the minister
and the parishioner are single (usually not the case), what's wrong with
their havinging a relationship?

As Fortune has outlined, there can be no authentic consent in a relationship
involving unequal power. And no matter how egalitarian a pastor's style
of ministry, he carries an authority that cannot be ignored. I deliberately
use the term "he" because, as in domestic violence, the vast
preponderance of these cases involve male clergy. It is possible for a
male parishioner, particularly one with special financial or organizational
clout--a church council member for instance--to harass a woman minister.
It should also be noted that abuse also occurs between pastors- and parishioners
of the same sex. In such cases, the same power dynamics also pertain,
further complicated by internalized homophobia and pressures and fears
on the victim not to disclose or report.

The clergy role carries a great deal of power in and of itself, and one
of the most insidious aspects of that power is the role of "man of
God." In some sense the minister carries ultimate spiritual authority,
particularly in the eyes of a trusting parishioner who looks to him for
spiritual guidance and support. But the male minister also possesses other
forms of power: as a man, he carries the power society confers upon men
and socializes them to hold over women, often in the guise of being their
protectors. He is often physically stronger and more imposing. He may
be an employer. He may also assume a teaching or mentoring role which
encourages women to listen to his advice and correction. Often he also
functions as a counselor, with all the transference inherent in such a
relationship.

Because of this power, ministers must not ever get involved with parishioners.
(For a contrasting, less absolute viewpoint, see Karen Lebacqz and Ron
Barton's article "Pastor-Parishioner Sexuality: An Ethical Analysis."
Explor, Winter 1988. They argue that it may be legitimate intimate for
single pastors to fall in love with single parishioners. In this treatment
of the theme. Lebacqz and Barton also caution that a complex power dynamic
must be taken into consideration.)

In addition, the pastor must remain aware that dual relationships-where
the pastor is also friend, spiritual adviser, pastoral counselor, administrator,
CEO and even employer to his parishioners-can become exploitive or inappropriately
intimate. While dual relationships are often difficult to avoid. Pastors
should be trained to be conscious of the potential for harm. and to understand
that they hold the ethical responsibility as professionals for keeping
the boundary intact.

The harm done to victims can best be understood in terms of the opportunities
pastors have for ministry and how these opportunities are destroyed by
violating sexual boundaries. In their counseling role, pastors have an
opportunity to heal and strengthen fractured boundaries, and many parishioners
suffering from childhood abuse have these fractures. Moreover, if a parishioner
acts out sexually, the minister should recognise it as a clear cry for
help. The last thing he should do is read it as a valid invitation. It
is even more reprehensible for him to initiate a sexual relationship and
exploit this vulnerability. The pastoral relationship can and should be
a sacred trust, a place where a parishioner can come with the deepest
wounds and vulnerabilities-where she can even act out sexually. By modeling
appropriate boundaries and healthy responses, the pastor can begin to
empower her to heal those wounds. The harm done when this is exploited
is no less than a violation of sacred space, which further ruptures and
destroys the women's boundaries, devastating her mental health and her
sense of self. What every therapist knows (or ought to) about this should
also be required training for every pastor. A pastor's sexual or romantic
involvement with a parishioner is primarily a matter of power and control.

Pastors have an opportunity to emphasize a power-with rather than a power-over
model in the parish. But sexual relationships with female parishioners
reinforce a traditional male power dynamic and breed a closed, destructive
parish model. In his pastoral role, the pastor has opportunities to validate
the gifts and talents of his parishioners. When he focuses on a woman's
sexuality, whether or not he denigrates her other abilities, those talents
are discounted. Frequently the very talents that attracted him to her
in the first place become discounted and devalued by him once the sexual
relationship begins.

Finally, when a pastor violates a parishioner's boundaries he takes away
the church's appropriate, powerful and sustaining spiritual guidance and
support and, because of threats to her reputation, robs her of an important
arena for her creativity and contributions. Many victimized women report
that not only have they lost their parish community, but their trust has
been so violated that they cannot go to any church.

Both pastor and victim lose. Their families lose. And the church loses.
But the woman victim loses the most and, as things stand in most denominations,
the pastor loses the least. Typically, when such a relationship or multiple
relationships are uncovered, he gets a slap on the wrist, a lot of sympathy
and is referred to a counselor. The parish is left to cope with feelings
of betrayal and rape--most often directed at the woman as seductress.
His family is angry at his betrayal (although they often minimize and
deny it). and his wife is usually left feeling confused, abused and fearful.
The family of the woman involved is generally broken up and the burden
of blame placed on her. She loses her reputation. her parish, sometimes
her job and even her whole life in the community. The best she can usually
expect from denominational leaders is sympathy, not Justice-that is. they
take no action to prevent the pastor from doing it again, nor do they
recognize the seriousness of his violation. At worst, she can expect to
encounter disbelief or blame.

Like batterers, abusive pastors are frequently charming and charismatic
In situations outside the abusive relationship, because the real dynamic
is power, not sex, they are often perceived as having strong leader- ship
qualities and are often described as visionaries or political movers and
shakers (or they believe that they are), They are often manipulative and
foster a climate of secrets, gossip and an inner circle. As with batterers,
there is no racial or class profile to this group.

In my experience, about half the time these men also abuse alcohol. But,
as with domestic violence, drinking is not the cause of the abuse, although
it is often used as the excuse. The common myth, probably held by his
wife, the parish and the denomination, is that once he admits and deals
with his alcohol problem, the sexual misconduct will stop. My experience
is that sexual misconduct and exploitation does not stop until it is dealt
with explicitly. A purely addiction-treatment model will not address a
male power addiction, because the dependency model does not confront the
root social forces sustaining and normalizing male power over women.

It is difficult to guess how consciously these pastors abuse women. They
tend to see themselves, when questioned, as victims of female wiles. Sometimes--as
when threatened with suspension by their denomination--they admit that
they are in need of treatment to "build up their fortitude against
being seduced." What they generally fail to see is their own responsibility.

The internal dynamics at it work in these men may include: history of
an abusive childhood; low self-esteem and a fear of failure; deeply held
traditional values about male and female roles, however disguised in liberal
rhetoric; poor impulse control; a sense of entitlement, of being above
the law, or other narcissistic traits, difficulttry accepting responsibility
for mistakes and difficulty establishing appropriate intimate relationships
and friendships with male peers (he may have what Mary Pellauer calls
a "Lone Ranger" style of ministry).